Latest PIOMAS update (July 2020, mid-monthly update)

[Wipneus]

Thanks Wipneus!🙂

Only a fourth place?! How far away are we from first place for the date?

PIOMAS uses sea ice area for input. NSIDC sea ice area is third/fourth lowest for the day, in contrast with extent. That still may change.

[Wipneus]

Some people have good use for the updated regional data files.

daily:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/data/PIOMAS-regional.txt.gz

[Wipneus]

The Fram volume export graph shows more export than the July "normal".

[gandul]

It’s impossible that, with the exceptional energy input this July, we are not seeing a more dramatic drop of piomas. The model is failing right now.

[oren]

In 2-3 days we should have another PIOMAS report, thanks to the tireless Wipneus. I looked at mid-July losses of past years in the CAB (days 182 to 197 to match this year
s numbering). Many years managed to lose above 1300 km3 for the period (see table below), but none managed 1400 km³. Will 2020 be the first? Considering the persistent high pressure, clear skies and low albedo, one should expect so. Will it manage 1500 km³? Who knows,
With 2020's CAB volume lagging 562 km³ behind 2019 and 340 km³ behind 2012, this is a major chance to catch up. Otherwise, a new volume record might be very hard to achieve.

2007      -1120
2008      -1224
2009      -1330
2010      -1310
2011      -1365
2012      -1384
2013      -1296
2014        -951
2015      -1355
2016      -1351
2017      -1198
2018      -1209
2019      -1343

The CAB lost 1578 km3 in this period, blowing 2012's previous record of 1384 km3 out of the water.

[Jim Hunt]

PIOMAS IS WAY OVERDONE IN THE SOUTHERN CAA.

Just wait until cryosat comes back in late September and early October. I guarantee it will be shockingly low.

Are you aware of this current "issue" with AWI level 3 gridded CryoSat-2 thickness in the CAA?

https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/07/the-northwest-passage-in-2020/

[BornFromTheVoid]

Despite remaining in roughly 4th lowest position since the last update, the gap to the lowest volume continues to shrink.

[oren]

Some regional charts split into two posts. Later I hope to post rough predictions for the minimum by region and in total.

All trends continued as they were, except for the catch up in the CAB and an apparent slowdown in the CAA (IMHO caused by artifacts in end-June NSIDC area). Beaufort and Greenland Sea still sky high, Laptev and ESS still crazy low, Chukchi and Kara still on the low side.
Click each to zoom.

p.s. I must admit I suspect PIOMAS is underestimating volume loss this period, but the numbers are what they are, this is just a layman's hunch. As PIOMAS is constrained by NSIDC data, should there be a significant melt-out in the coming two months, volume will follow accordingly.

[oren]

4 additional charts. Click each to zoom.

[Phoenix]

The CAB lost 1578 km3 in this period, blowing 2012's previous record of 1384 km3 out of the water.

Flat out obliterated the trend. The GAAC has indeed been great.

[gerontocrat]

Thanks Wipneus!🙂

Only a fourth place?! How far away are we from first place for the date?

PIOMAS uses sea ice area for input. NSIDC sea ice area is third/fourth lowest for the day, in contrast with extent. That still may change.

Area is still 3rd lowest, but closing in on 2012 and 2016 the last 2 days.

I attach the NSIDC Area daily change graph and the PIOMAS daily change graph for Jun 30 to 1 Aug.. Both show large losses in the first week of July and average to below average losses from the second week to the 15th/16th. They match pretty well, despite the area data being the 5 day trailing average.

In the last 2 days daily area loss has increased again just when the season on average is past its peak daily losses. A good chance PIOMAS daily losses will follow suit?

[gerontocrat]

I attach 2 tables & a graph on PIOMAS volume as at mid-July (15th or 16th July).

The previous 10 years average remaining volume los would give a minimum of 3.88 '000 km3, second lowest behind 2012.

But the way this season has gone so far...........

[jdallen]

I attach 2 tables & a graph on PIOMAS volume as at mid-July (15th or 16th July).

The previous 10 years average remaining volume los would give a minimum of 3.88 '000 km3, second lowest behind 2012.

But the way this season has gone so far...........

I think it's worth mentioning that the lions share of that 0.436 thousand km3 difference between 2020 and 2019 is subsumed by the Greenland and Chukchi seas.

[oren]

Time for the prediction of volume for the September minimum. Please zoom the regional charts above to follow the analysis.
Of the seas traditionally participating in the minimum, the Laptev is nearly zero now. The ESS is record low. The Kara is very low. The Barents is on the low side. Chukchi is rather low as well. All are assumed to be zero in September - for some of these seas that is a very common achievement, for some a rather rare one.

We remain with the four unknowns:
* Greenland Sea - has been running high since spring. I expect it to crash at some point due to melting and lack of imports, especially now that most of the thick ice at the export region has disappeared. My bet is somewhere above 2019 but far below 2012. 125 km3.
* CAA - had a very slow start, but a fast decline. Temps have been running very high for a month. I expect a result above 2012/2011 but probably below 2019. 100 km3.
* Beaufort - the most anomalous. Has been running high and getting higher, due to extra imports and lower exports. I can't see it heading towards near-zero, and foresee a high volume, probably somewhere below 2013's 200 km3, but above 2018's 80 km3. 125 km3.
* CAB - naturally the most variable in magnitude. has been running high in winter and spring, only to crash in the last month back into the fold. From where we are now it is quite common to reach 4000-4200 km3. Following the high losses of 2007, 2012, 2016, we might get to 3600 km3, still above 2012's minimum of 3400 km3. And who knows? We might break loss records, and perhaps even reach a CAB record in September.

Summing everything, we get 350 km3 outside the CAB. With a reasonable/aggressive scenario of 3600 km3 in the CAB, we get a total of 3950 km3, a respectable 2nd, lower than 2019's 4050 km3, but still much higher than 2012's 3670 km3.
However, my money is still on a record low volume. I am betting the impact of the GAAC was partially missed by the model, and will be incorporated later when ice area crashes. In addition, early open water on the Siberian side might eat deeper into the CAB than usual. If a CAB record can be achieved, total volume will probably also reach a record low.

[Aluminium]

Changes from June 30.

Laptev ... -89%
Hudson ... -85%
Barents ... -77%
Kara ... -73%
Baffin ... -71%
ESS ... -68%
Chukchi ... -46%
Greenland ... -26%
CAA ... -21%
CAB ... -19%
Beaufort ... -19%

[Tor Bejnar]

Aluminium,
This presentation will be dramatic at the end of the melt season when the CAB starts growing while other areas continue to loose ice.  (I wonder what the rim colour will be!)

[Neven]

I noticed Wip updated this graph, showing JAXA thickness (unreliable, but still interesting):

[gerontocrat]

I noticed Wip updated this graph, showing JAXA thickness (unreliable, but still interesting):

I forgot these were in one of my spreadsheets, so I've dusted off the cobwebs and here they are.

Thickness graphs (PIOMAS volume / NSIDC Area)-
- Total Arctic,
- High Arctic Seas total
- Peripheral Arctic Seas total,
- Greenland Sea - will be the only peripheral sea left of any significant ice in it by end July.

[oren]

Hi Wipneus, could you please provide an update of the gice charts? (Area and volume by thickness categories). It would be very interesting this year.

Another question Wipneus, you posted a chart last year that showed the distribution of PIOMAS thickness bins and was a good predictor of area at minimum, if I am not mistaken. Could you post it again this year?

That would be the gice graphs. For an explanation of gice see https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,119.msg152005.html#msg152005

Attached are the 30th June graphs.

[Wipneus]

Hi Wipneus, could you please provide an update of the gice charts? (Area and volume by thickness categories).

The gice data has not been updated since mid 2019.

It would be very interesting this year.

Agreed, I will ask Dr. Zhang.

[oren]

Thank you Wipneus.

[oren]

Following a discussion from another thread, here is the promised chart of PIOMAS volume divided by UH area, a measure of average thickness.
Please note that due to the wide distribution of ice thicknesses, and by the definition of the measure, average thickness will often rise (or slow down its drop) in times of accelerated area loss, and will drop sharply during initial ice regrowth.
Click each chart to enlarge and zoom.

Notes: Thanks to Wipneus for both sets of data. Some missing UH values were interpolated manually.

[grixm]

Following a discussion from another thread, here is the promised chart of PIOMAS volume divided by UH area, a measure of average thickness.
Please note that due to the wide distribution of ice thicknesses, and by the definition of the measure, average thickness will often rise (or slow down its drop) in times of accelerated area loss, and will drop sharply during initial ice regrowth.
Click each chart to enlarge and zoom.

Notes: Thanks to Wipneus for both sets of data. Some missing UH values were interpolated manually.

Hmm, I thought the PIOMAS raw output was a thickness map, and this had to be masked with an area map to produce a volume figure. And this mask is normally NSIDC area, so I wanted to see what the volume would be if the thickness was masked with the AMSR2 area instead, that's what I meant in the other thread.
In your charts however, it goes the other way: The PIOMAS volume from Wipneus is used as is, and divided by the AMSR2 area, to give a different thickness than PIOMAS originally produced. But this means that the PIOMAS volume input for your equation is already masked with the NSIDC area, no? Or am I misunderstanding something?

[oren]

PIOMAS output is many files of which I know nothing about. Wipneus processes them and provides downloadable aggregate data (divided by regions) on his website, as well as the animations and charts posted here every two weeks. I lack the ability to do geographical/gridded processing of PIOMAS output.
I took the total volume provided by Wipneus and divided by the total UH area, also provided by Wipneus... I occasionally do the same for sub-regions, specifically the CAB. Obviously the average thickness provided by PIOMAS directly would be of better value than this rather crude approximation.

PIOMAS is masked with NSIDC extent (as much as I understand the question, and the issue) but assimilates NSIDC ice concentration ("area") as part of its inputs.
In any case it would be wrong to mask the PIOMAS map or output files with the AMSR2 area map. If I understand correctly, the main goal of PIOMAS is to model the volume, rather than its very specific location. So cutting off parts of the map using a mask that did not serve as input to PIOMAS would not be calculating a valid value.

[Wipneus]

Thanks to DR. Zhang we have updated gice files as well. Gice gives information about the thickness variations in each of the cells in the PIOMAS grid. I have tried to explain the details  of gice here: 
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,119.msg152005.html#msg152005

From gice I can calculate the area occupied from ice with thickness in each of the 12 thickness categories.
The attached graph shows this for each of the years in the PIOMAS data set. The area of all categories with thickness larger than zero is the PIOMAS area figure. PIOMAS area near the minimum, I take 10th of September, is plotted as a dashed line.

The naive explanation is that before 2007 about 26 cm of ice would be melted by the end of the melting season. The final area more or less follows the >26cm category. After 2007 that figure is about 71cm, after 2007 final area follows the >71cm cat, with variations less than half a million km2.

Ice of 71 cm and higher has the lowest area on day 197 of all years. To beat 2012 September area it has to go quite a bit lower than that, as 2020 managed to melt quite some ice in the >71cm category.

[Wipneus]

You can of course also plot ice volume per category.

[Tom]

That first graph seems to show that we should expect extent/area loss to continue.

I say this because the area taken by ice <0.26m ice is larger than previous years.

[oren]

Thank you Wipneus.
I note 2020 is the lowest for the date on both the >71cm ice and on the >26cm ice. I also note that the reason 2020 has slightly higher volume than 2019 and 2012 is the volume contained in the very thick ice, >4.23m. My conclusion is that at least according to PIOMAS this year does not have good defenses against a a new record area/extent - there isn't more volume where it counts. OTOH, unless that super-thick ice happens to be exported, it means this year has a bit of buffer to overcome before it can break the record low volume.

[jdallen]

<snippage> My conclusion is that at least according to PIOMAS this year does not have good defenses against a a new record area/extent - there isn't more volume where it counts. OTOH, unless that super-thick ice happens to be exported, it means this year has a bit of buffer to overcome before it can break the record low volume.

I'm pessimistic about that buffer, in part because there is little to protect it.  I'm keeping in mind this was the estimate from a week ago, and the melt since then has been significant and much higher than average.

I'm reasonably confident pretty much anything <= 71cm will melt out, and a lot of ice that is thicker will also, due to the fact it is no longer contiguous, and will be exposed once the thinner ice is removed.  That's one of the "intangible" problems we have, regarding the quality of the pack.  Distribution counts, and outside of a relatively small region (< 2 million km2) backed up to the CAA ice quality is awful.

[Lord M Vader]

August 3 today. Let's see if the volume numbers for July will show up today. And if we will get a new record low volume for July 31.